Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Comments on 3 D&O Rulings That Should Be On Your Summer Reading List
Time 2 Minute Read
Categories: D&O, Industry News

In an article appearing in Law360 on August 8, 2019, Hunton insurance partner, Syed Ahmad, provided insight into three recent significant D&O insurance decisions.

The first decision, Solera Holdings Inc. v. XL Specialty Insurance Co., discussed first on the Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog on August 5, 2019 in an article by Hunton insurance partner, Michael Levine, and associate, Daniel Hentschel, concerned a finding by a Delaware court that an appraisal proceeding constituted a “securities claim” sufficient to trigger coverage under a D&O insurance policy held by Solera Holdings, Inc.  As Ahmad explained, “[t]his is a significant ruling because of the court’s analysis about the reference to 'violation' which is in a variety of policy provisions.” “The court’s rationale is another example of why the specific terms in a policy matter, and they matter a great deal. The court’s reliance on dictionary definitions is also important because it provides another pathway to advance an interpretation of a term in a way that supports coverage.”

In the second decision, Emmis Communications Corp. v. Illinois National Insurance Co., the Seventh Circuit found that a D&O insurer properly denied coverage for a shareholder suit on the grounds that the suit had already been reported by the insured under an earlier policy, thereby triggering an exclusion barring coverage for any losses involving circumstances “as reported” under a previous policy with another insurer.

In the third decision, Pfizer Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., a Delaware court refused to apply a common D&O policy exclusion and allowed Pfizer Inc. to press its suit to force two excess insurers to help cover its costs in multidistrict litigation.  The decision turned on the court’s decision to apply one state’s law over another based on the policyholder’s state of incorporation, unlike many states which look to the policyholder’s principle place of business.  As Ahmad commented, “[the] ruling follows many others where Delaware courts have favored the law of a company’s state of incorporation instead of its headquarters.”  “That should not be too surprising given the unique role Delaware plays as a go-to state of incorporation for many companies.”

The Law360 article can be found here.

  • Partner

    Mike is a Legal 500 and Chambers USA-ranked lawyer with more than 25 years of experience litigating insurance disputes and advising clients on insurance coverage matters.

    Mike Levine is a partner in the firm’s Washington, DC ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 1 Minute Read

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP partner Syed Ahmad was quoted on July 20 in a Law360 article titled “R&W Insurance Claim Frequency Expected To Normalize.”  The article discussed the recent reduction in R&W claims and industry experts’ expectations that claim frequency will return to normal levels this year.  Mr. Ahmad commented on the challenges policyholders may face when disputing claims in court.  In particular, while there is plenty of case law regarding disputes between buyers and sellers over breaches of representations and warranties, there is very little precedent on how ...

Time 1 Minute Read

After any merger or acquisition, disputes can arise regarding the accuracy of representations and warranties made by the seller to the buyer. In most transactions today, the buyer obtains representation and warranty insurance to cover the buyer for losses resulting from the seller’s breach of a representation or warranty. When an R&W policy provides coverage, a seller may attempt to offset its obligations to the buyer by amounts paid by the R&W insurer. Likewise, the R&W insurer may attempt offset against the damages paid by the seller to the buyer. But other legal and equitable ...

Time 4 Minute Read

On December 9th, the Eleventh Circuit held that a loss of over $1.7 million to scammers was covered under a commercial crime insurance policy’s fraudulent instruction provision.

Time 5 Minute Read

The Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sanders v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., 2019 IL 124565 (2019), announced the standard for triggering general liability coverage for malicious prosecution claims under Illinois law.  In its decision, the court construed what appears to be a policy ambiguity against the policyholder in spite of the longstanding rule of contra proferentem, limiting coverage to policies in place at the time of the wrongful prosecution, and not the policies in effect when the final element of the tort of malicious prosecution occurred (i.e. the exoneration of the plaintiff).  The net result of the court’s ruling for policyholders susceptible to such claims is that coverage for jury verdicts for malicious prosecution – awarded in today’s dollars – is limited to the coverage procured at the time of the wrongful prosecution, which may (as in this case) be decades old.  Such a scenario can have costly consequences for policyholders given that the limits procured decades ago are often inadequate due to the ever-increasing awards by juries as well as inflation.  Moreover, it may be difficult to locate the legacy policies and the insurers that issued such policies may no longer be solvent or even exist.  A copy of the decision can be found here.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page